In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking issuance of a mandamus regarding solatium and service benefits, the High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear in court on the date of hearing despite prior notice.
Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.11.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.22735 of 2014
S.Harinee ..Petitioner
Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.Inspector General of Police (Internal Security), 'Q' Branch CID Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 3. Superintendent of Police 'Q' Branch CID Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 4.The Commandant Tamil Nadu Special Police, V Bagttalion Thirumullaivoyal, Vhrnnsi 600 062. 5.S.Muruganantham ..Respondents
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1 st to 4th respondents herein to nor release the solatium amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and all other service related benefits of Late.M.Tamilselvi (Sub-Inspector), in favour of 5 th respondent until the petitioner gets and appropriate direction from Hon'ble District Court, Thiruvallur, under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
For Petitioners:No appearance
For Respondents:Mr.R.Vijayakumar R1 to R4 Addl. Government Pleader
O R D E R
When the Writ Petition was listed for hearing on 30.10.2017, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the Registry was directed to list the matter under the caption 'for dismissal' on 31.10.2017. Today (06.11.2017), when the matter was called, none appeared for the writ petitioner.
2.In the light of the fact that there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner is not willing to get along with the matter and therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
rpa
To
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Inspector General of Police
(Internal Security), 'Q' Branch CID
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3. The Superintendent of Police
'Q' Branch CID
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
4. The Commandant
Tamil Nadu Special Police, V Bagttalion
Thirumullaivoyal, Vhrnnsi 600 062.
W.P.No. 22735 of 2014
RJ(CO)
SP(23/11/2017)
W.P.No. 22735 of 2014
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Harinee
State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government Home Department
Inspector General of Police (Internal Security)
Superintendent of Police 'Q' Branch CID
Commandant Tamil Nadu Special Police
S.Muruganantham
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
